PM - I agree that taking innocent life is terrible. But I have a hard time believing we took any innocent lives here. You have a choice, believe OUR soldiers, or their doctor who was not even there...

OUR guys say they fired on only "insurgents" ...

By the way, Since taking any innocent life, whether by accident or not, is equally bad, Then you support the same punishment for First degree murder as you would someone accidently killing someone in a car accident, right ?

A journalist in war is innocent like a race car driver is at Indy.... they know precisely the risk being taken when they enter the field of battle. Remember our embedded journalists ? Did people react this way when nine Western Journalists were killed last year ? Nope...

From the article I read in my local paper the armored fighting vehicle was disabled by a roadside bomb, our boys escaped with some injuries, a crowd assembled and began to celebrate atop the wreckage waving the banner of some terrorist organization, the US helicopter lit them up. If that's how it happened, then I say, "Good job. Keep doing it." If you're celebrating US military defeats then you must be the enemy - adios.

The new Iraqi gov't needs to establish order and it apparently is not going to manage that by being soft.

BTW, a nice little quote regarding domestic weenie-ism:

"We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald W. Reagan

By the way, you seem pretty angry about this. How do you think that gay man feels who can't stay overnight in the hospital with his partner of 20 years?

I think this is wrong, and could be fixed without modifying the definition of marraige one iota. There are many things that cause me no grief at all regarding gay rights. I'll cover a few:

I support their right not to be denied a job because they are gay.

I support their right to go anywhere, anytime any time that they wish without having to be afraid of being assaulted because they are gay. I do NOT support "hate crimes" legislation. If someone murders a straight person, and someone else murders a gay person, I say fry 'em both. The penalty for murder, assault, etc. should be uniform regardless of the victim's demographic status.

I support their right to name any person to whom they wish to leave their belongings to when they die, and for that named person to have the same zero tax status as a man / woman arrangement.

I support their right to name any person who they wish to share power of attorney with for all medical, legal, and financial matters.

I simply do not support their wish to destroy religious institutions that have existed for thousands of years. Craig said it, our greedy governemt involved itself, and now marraige is being destroyed because it is now a pseudo government institution.

As to being angry, I'm not. Frustrated, yes. There is no hate in my heart for gay people. I simply do not believe that it is healthy, moral, or normal. If you do not toe the line that being gay is just the way it is, and everything in the world should be changed to accomodate it, then you get blasted as being a hateful, fearful, arrogant, sob. You don't think that I should be even a little frustrated?

In reply to:

In the end, you can stand on the pulpit, pound your fists, and scream that gays are abhorent...whatever you want to do...it's your right....but you still can't justify discriminating against them. They are citizens of the United States and deserve the same protections that you and I enjoy

You pound your pulpit, and I'll pound mine. Not allowing someone to participate in a religious ceremony because they do not meet the criteria that have been used by those institutions for centuries is NOT discrimnation. I would have loved to have been Barmitzvad. It looks fun. But guess what? I'm not Jewish, so I am not allowed to participate. Discrimination? Yes, but I have no choice but to live with it. The only difference is that the government hasn't set up a framework of taxes based on whether you've been Barmitzvad or not. If it had, then I would be having the exact same argument as those who support gay marraige. Discrimination is a part of life. Drive a red car not a blue one - you have discriminated. Took the train instead of the bus? - you have discriminated. Have milk instead of OJ this morning? - you have discriminated. Discrimination is a part of life. We can not remove it. Marriage is not a right. It is a religous ceremony. By the way. I do not believe in "marraiges" performed by judges, or any other legal entity. To me men and women who are NOT religous should be subject to the same "rules" as gay people. They should have a way to set up all of the legal aspects of sharing life, legal matters, and wealth that would cover both (with the obvious addition of parental matters as well). See? I just lumped all of you athiest heterosexual married people in with gay people on the marraige issue. Wearing 3 flame suits now...

I do support marraiges performed by ship Captains, and any other person in high authority when in times of dire crisis.

Oh.. and I do not see the World as black and white. There is grey. There are just too many shades of grey for us to deal with each one individually. Logically, you need to take degree into consideration. Look at your computer. Everything in it down to the most miniscule circuit in it is either "on" or "off". Binary. 2 choices. Yet when you combine millions of yes/no, on/off, true/false possibilities, you find that all of the options are covered. So yes, every issue, no matter how grey, can be broken down into it's smallest components, and therefore into a series of black and white issues.

I see... So that is your defense to take two day's worth of conversation and try to discredit it with one paragraph. That is pretty lame... ... SPiff... You know FULL well from reading everything I wrote that MY solution is to take the government control out of everyone's life.

Had the Government not co-opted marriage from religion in the first place, Gay marriage would not be an issue. As an avowed Athiest, you should appreciate that concept. Government uses marriage as another way of leveraging power over people.

Gay Unions (actually... ANY secular union) should be a private affair. If government enacted the four points I posted, any two, or five, or 22 people could live together anyway they thought was desirable with no penalties from the government for not conforming to some role they deem fit.

By the way, Anyone who does NOT think that the laws being proposed would NOT lead to abuse is either lying or naive. And Spiff, if YOU LOOK at what I said, it would NOT be the gay community that would abuse these laws... I was VERY clear about that. I personally know 8 guys and 4 girls who have ALL said they would use just such a loophole... They are all divorced, love to just have fun, and never want to marry again... Would they actually go through with it ? I don't know... but they sure love yapping about it....

Ok, but WHY is it wrong, other than the fact that you find it disgusting?

Both are wrong because the foundations of the Constitution are based on the Judeo Christian value system. In that belief system, both stealing and homosexuality are defined as being wrong. Speeding is wrong because the law says it is, not because you can't physically operate the vehicle at the higher speed. I do not believe that I expressed disgust anywhere in my post. If that was the impression that you recieved, my apologies.

In reply to:

Human beings have evolved to a point where genetic are not a determinant factor for behavior.

Evolution has stopped, and nobody told me? That is precisely why I think we need to shield small children from even knowing that it exists. The environment has a substantial role in determining human behavior during the formative years.

In reply to:

Who the hell cares if a penis was designed to go only one place. Humans have great imaginations, expecially where sex is concerned. Who are YOU to tell people how to act.

I never said that I wanted to tell anyone how to act. They can do whatever they like - in private, just like you and your wife. I have no desire to tell them what to do. They certainly make no bones about telling ME what to do, or what I should think, though. Humans can have any and all the sex they want. More power (and best of luck) to them. All I ask is that they don't do it on the front porch in front of the kiddies.

In reply to:

How does a homosexual union infringe on YOUR rights?

It would when the government starts confiscating funds from my paycheck to support it, and when my employer cuts my benefits to provide theirs.